Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 80

Thread: Abortion

  1. #41
    Scooby Gang BloodyHell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Great North
    Posts
    513
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 43 Times in 41 Posts

    Default

    For those who agree with abortion being legal, I'm confused on this point: I'm assuming you would think it is wrong to kill a newborn baby. A newborn baby is nearly as helpless as a 20 wk old fetus. Not quite, of course, but a newborn is not an independent individual. Still, we recognise it as a crime to wipe out this little "parasitic" (terrible, though accurate, term) life. So why is it not considered "killing" to abort a 20 wk old fetus? What is the difference between them except one being outside of the womb and one having not emerged? I believe life begins at conception, but for those that don't...at the very least the fetus is alive once it has a heartbeat doesn't it? This happens earlier than one month after conception. So when a heart stops beating, something has died, yes? And if one were to make the choice that makes that heart stop beating, wouldn't that be...er...killing it? And if it IS considered killing...why is this OK? Just because the fetus is at the mercy of his/her mother's choice? I'm sorry, I get that the whole "baby-killer" thing is a huge flamey bottle of argue-starter. I'm not standing with some stupid protest sign yelling baby killer. I just want to know what euphemism is used amongst "pro-choice" people. ( and can I say that the terms "pro choice" and "pro life" are annoying terms. I hate them. What, so people who believe abortion to be wrong think women should not be able to decide what to do with their bodies? Um..no, I just want them to not decide what to do with ANOTHER'S body - the childs! And people who agree with abortion think life is meaningless? Of course not. No one here is insinuating that.)

    My opinions on this are very much tangled up with my faith, and also the responsibility(and therefore acceptance of consequences) I place on the woman for choosing to have sex. (which opens up the can of worms of: what if she is raped and conceives? In this case, I still believe it is the right thing to do to keep the baby, because he/she is innocent of any wrong doing. However, I recognise the emotional damage caused by rape and that this may result in great damage to the mother and - worse - the child and his/her upbringing. In this post, I am referring to consentual sex resulting in an unwanted pregnancy) On the one hand, I do believe that we are given free will for a reason - we can and should choose our own way. But I struggle with making it legal for any and all reasons the woman chooses, because I believe it to be wrong except in very rare, medical circumstances. I don't support the notion of "if she wants to get rid of the fetus, she will find a way" as a justification for abortion being legal or right.

    Bottom line: I think no matter how you look at it, abortion extinguishes human life. We have no way of knowing just HOW uniquely human a fetus at any stage is (if you believe humans having a soul, which I do). We do know that it can be proven that the fetus has various human-isms, babyisms. It WILL develop into a person. And honestly, who CARES about physical changes or damage to the mother if she carries to term and delivers(I'm not talking death, here...I mean migraines and "my vagina will never be the same!!" and other such woes)? This is a human life that is worth far more than pain and sacrifice.

    I sincerely do not mean to offend anyone on here that knows someone or has personally had an abortion. Please take this only as one persons opinion.
    Last edited by BloodyHell; 11-02-12 at 04:52 AM.
    I have loved you. - Ser Jorah Mormont

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to BloodyHell For This Useful Post:

    cheryl4ba (11-02-12)

  3. #42
    Slayer cheryl4ba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,232
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked 21 Times in 19 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mara View Post
    [B]


    I was wondering weather you would join this debate, I value your viewpoints even if I donít agree with them. I have a bit of a problem with your choice of words here the one real issue here is not the truth, as this is a very personal concept and it is defiantly not the truth as you see it, as that is not the truth it is an opinion. I am thinking however that I might have misread these lines, so please I am not trying in any way to offend you.

    I do agree with you fully, that debating this issue and not touch upon God/ the religious aspect means not debating this issue fully from all aspects. I Think that the religious aspect is highly important, and yes this is partly because I believe in God but also because, religious opinions and groups influence this debate in a real way. Coming from a very strict Jewish background I can say that in Judaism, bearing healthy children is one of the first obligations that humans have however abortion is permitted, and on the subject of ensoulment there is great debate. I am linking an article with some explanation
    http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm

    Now there are spiritual believes that place ensoulment at the point of conception, there are others that place ensoulment at the point of birth, if am not mistaking Islam believes that at some point during the pregnancy the mother to be is visited by an angel that gives the child a soul after which point abortion becomes prohibited. I personally think that the reason God granted us free will is for us to make up our own mind, so coming from that standpoint I think the mother to be should make up her own mind about weather or not to keep the unborn. I do believe that if a soul needs to be on earth God will place it on earth, if not within one family than within another.

    So for those who are still reading this, my opinion. I am a 100% pro- choice, and I am not sugar coating it, to me pro - chose means exactly that to have a choice and to leave that choise with the mother to either have the child or to have an abortion. I strongly believe that abortion should be legal. It is human nature to find solutions to their problems either way a woman who doesnít want to have the child will find a way to not have the child and I believe it is part of the responsibility of any government to provide the necessary medical help, so that the woman can precede with an abortion without risking her health. When my mother was growing up in Russia there were no abortion clinics provided by the government, there were also no methods of preventing pregnancy available. Women had to go, go to some half backed doctor types who didnít know what they were doing and half the time caused infertility as a Ďside effectí of the abortion. I remember my mum going in to a Dutch supply store for the first time and seeing a row of condoms on display next to the registry, she was literally jumping up and down. Knowing that I could have ways to protect myself from unwanted pregnancy meant the world to her. So I have been raised with the believe that legalising abortion is necessary. (Next to that my mum is just a feminist so I have been raised with women power! Yey! Slogans all my life but that is besides the point)

    So now to the question would I do it? The answer to that is simple, I donít know. As a religious person I believe all life is sacred and although I am a firm believer in abortion, I would like to hope that I would turn out to be the kind of person who would keep the child. But then I am 24 years old, I have discussed the issue extensively at home, I know I have the support of my mother and I know I can raise a child on my own and deal with the dissaprovment of the rest of my family. So I have a situation where for me keeping the child is a no brainier. But again if and when I come to that bridge I donít know how I will cross it.
    Thanks Mara. What I meant regarding the truth as I know it was simply that my thoughts are based on what I consider to be "the truth" from a biblical viewpoint. So it is the truth, as *I* know it. What I believe it to be.

    I find it interesting that you said it is within the rights of a Jewish person to have an abortion and was just wondering if you can share with me where you find that in the bible? I have read the bible, OT and New and never got that impression. It IS a huge book filled with a ton of information though, so I am certainly not implying that because I don't remember it, it can't be there.

    In my humble opinion abortion is murder which we know God commands us not to do. Having said that, it certainly isn't something that a person could never recover from. I don't believe a sin like that even exists. Looking at the OT as we learn about God and his people, some of the most loved and blessed by God were in fact guilty of committing murder. Moses killed a man and then fled to the wilderness for like 40 years and David, the man after God's own heart, ruthlessly killed a man for Bathsheba, the mans wife.

    So from my perspective this IS a choice that a female could be forced to make but it isn't any different than any other choice God puts before us. "I set before you life and death. Choose life." Obviously God gives us a choice in everything.

    Whosoever Shall Call Upon the Name of the Lord Shall Be Saved!

  4. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    6,996
    Thanks
    1,733
    Thanked 1,143 Times in 607 Posts

    Default

    And honestly, who CARES about physical changes or damage to the mother if she carries to term and delivers.
    Women do. I'm afraid that sentence really really plays down how badly a pregnancy can effect a person to a ridiculous degree imo to say nothing of appearing to hand wave away a womens right over her own body.

  5. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to sueworld For This Useful Post:

    Jessica M.C. (23-07-12),Mara (11-02-12),MikeB (13-12-14),Sky (12-02-12),vampmogs (11-02-12),Veverka (11-02-12)

  6. #44
    Team Sanity Nixennacht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,685
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 66 Times in 25 Posts

    Default

    Bloody Hell, did you read my discussion with KoC?
    I will try to explain my viewpoint again.

    First off I often do not get the "all life is sacred" thing. It is obviously not. We murder our ways through alive animals, plants and bacteria and other persons (think production conditions of many products we use) every single day of our lives.

    We assign more value to a person (close to us at least) but I guess we can discuss ourselves bloody on when a fetus reaches personhood.

    The really deciding factor for me (for which these musings are not really relevant) is the dependence from the mother. The second a baby can live outside the womb it becomes the responsibility of everybody and we as a society can chose that we have the obligation to take care of it. This is also the point where we can start to judge someone for killing it.

    Before that point where a Baby becomes the responsibility of society at large it's just between mother and child. The mother can sustain the life inside her or she can chose not to. It is her body and society imho has no right to interfere whatsoever.

    It's like the kidney donor example I brought up. We do not force people to donate kidneys, wombs (like in the handmaid's tale) or even just blood, even if it could save lives. We value sovereignty over our own bodies (even our dead bodies!!! And here's something I really do not understand!) more than someone else's life. We leave the decision to donate parts of our body with permanent or just temporary effects (like a plasma donation) (or no effect at all in case of dead people) to the person in question. I don't think women are any different, their bodies belong just as much to them as the body of a kidney donor (and I'd certainly give them more rights over their body than dead people). And while I think deciding to give that gift of life to someone (be it via birth or gender neutral organ donation) if you see yourself fit to do so, is great thing, I don't think it is something that should be forced on by society.

    Society gets a right to judge when it gains the ability to sustain the child. As long as only the mother can do that, it is the mother's choice. For me personally any interference with that, be it the forced abortions in China or the prohibited ones in other countries interfere with a women's sovereignty over her own body, inherently devaluing her life and will in the process (Ironically even below the value we assign to dead bodies, because even their wishes to become organ donors and save or save not another person (and in this case there is not even a question mark there) are respected.)

    To me the fact that mothers give life to their children does not mean society has a right to forcefully extort it from them. The questions of when is it person and can I sustain the life I am creating factor in when a woman has to make that horribly hard decision. My point is that it is nothing society has any right to interfere with.
    Last edited by Nixennacht; 11-02-12 at 09:22 AM.

  7. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Nixennacht For This Useful Post:

    Cori (11-02-12),Jessica M.C. (23-07-12),Sky (12-02-12),sueworld (11-02-12),vampmogs (11-02-12),Veverka (11-02-12)

  8. #45
    Slayer Supporter vampmogs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    12,140
    Thanks
    1,555
    Thanked 7,071 Times in 2,160 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BloodyHell View Post
    And honestly, who CARES about physical changes or damage to the mother if she carries to term and delivers
    You'll have to explain the logic to me of why a mother's rights (to control her own body, to lead the kind of life she wishes etc) are immediately forfeited the moment she gets knocked up. Who cares about the physical changes and damages to the mother? Um, the mother does!

    Letís not downplay the physical changes or damages that occur as a result of pregnancy. Some of these damages are temporary and some of them can be permanent. And with every pregnancy comes a risk that a woman might die or that her quality of life will forever be compromised. And that says nothing about the social stigma attached to some young mothers and how a pregnancy can destroy their home life, their schooling and other future aspirations. I find it depressing that anybody could so cavalierly dismiss a woman's concerns about the drastic changes her body would go through or the serious risks to her health and well-being.

    In the S9 thread I posted a list of all the different side effects pregnancy can have or will have on a womanís body and I think itís worth repeating;

    Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

    - exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
    - altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
    - nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
    - heartburn and indigestion
    - constipation
    - weight gain
    - dizziness and light-headedness
    - bloating, swelling, fluid retention
    - hemmorhoids
    - abdominal cramps
    - yeast infections
    - congested, bloody nose
    - acne and mild skin disorders
    - skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
    - mild to severe backache and strain
    - increased headaches
    - difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
    - increased urination and incontinence
    - bleeding gums
    - pica
    - breast pain and discharge
    - swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
    - difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
    - inability to take regular medications
    - shortness of breath
    - higher blood pressure
    - hair loss
    - tendency to anemia
    - curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
    - infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
    (pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
    - extreme pain on delivery
    - hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
    continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)

    Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

    - stretch marks (worse in younger women)
    - loose skin
    - permanent weight gain or redistribution
    - abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
    - pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life)
    - changes to breasts
    - varicose veins
    - scarring from episiotomy or c-section
    - other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
    - increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
    - loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)

    Occasional complications and side effects:

    - spousal/partner abuse
    - hyperemesis gravidarum
    - temporary and permanent injury to back
    - severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies)
    - dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
    - pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
    eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
    - gestational diabetes
    - placenta previa
    - anemia (which can be life-threatening)
    - thrombocytopenic purpura
    - severe cramping
    - embolism (blood clots)
    - medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
    - diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
    - mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
    - serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
    - hormonal imbalance
    - ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
    - broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
    - hemorrhage and
    numerous other complications of delivery
    - refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
    - aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
    - severe post-partum depression and psychosis
    - research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
    - research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
    research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease

    None of that should so easily be dismissed. I find it disconcerting that a young girl or a woman should be made to feel obligated to put her body through all of that trauma regardless of whether she wants to or not. We should not pressure any female to risk their life if they do not want to and being pregnant always comes with that risk.

    But most of all I find it weird that a womanís life is valued until she gets pregnant, but then her life must suddenly take a backseat to the potential life growing inside of her. Never mind her personal circumstances, her physical or mental health, or her choice in the matter, the foetuses life instantaneously becomes more important. The same foetus which is at the centre of great moral and scientific debate because nobody can quite agree on when it is counted as a life. But I should think we can all agree that a woman by this stage is very much alive though, and yet ďwho caresĒ is an all too common response to how an unwanted baby affects her. That's really illogical and pretty distressing to me.
    Last edited by vampmogs; 11-02-12 at 10:10 AM.
    "You've got ... a world of strength in your heart. I know you do. You just have to find it again. Believe in yourself."

  9. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to vampmogs For This Useful Post:

    Cori (11-02-12),Mara (11-02-12),MikeB (13-12-14),Nixennacht (11-02-12),sueworld (11-02-12),Veverka (11-02-12),Zugma (20-08-15)

  10. #46
    Scooby Gang BloodyHell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Great North
    Posts
    513
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 43 Times in 41 Posts

    Default

    Nix - I did read your discussion with King. A lot of stuff wasn't satifactorily answered. I think this will probably be one of those situations, where it is hardly even worth discussing because we are just miles away from each other in values and viewpoints. But here we go...

    Quote Originally Posted by Nixennacht View Post
    We murder our ways through alive animals, plants and bacteria and other persons (think production conditions of many products we use) every single day of our lives.
    Why are plants and animals even a part of this discussion? I'm not saying they don't have value, but most of us think it is acceptable to eat them, I don't think they have the same ball-park of value as a human life. And as far as murdering humans...yes, we have a lot of evil in us. I"m not sure how that justifies the taking of more life.

    The second a baby can live outside the womb it becomes the responsibility of everybody and we as a society can chose that we have the obligation to take care of it.
    I guess for me this determination is a big part of the problem; it feels like splitting hairs to me. Four months before the baby is born, he/she is still at a stage of development that most people would recognise as a baby...it just needs a litte more time to grow. I guess I should point out that it isn't that I think the choice can/should be taken away from the mother. You're right, it is her body and she'll do with it what she wants unless she was chained up. But I believe it is a wrong choice, and I don't want it legal because I don't want to support the freedom to make this choice over and over.
    Before that point where a Baby becomes the responsibility of society at large it's just between mother and child. The mother can sustain the life inside her or she can chose not to. It is her body and society imho has no right to interfere whatsoever.

    I don't think women are any different, their bodies belong just as much to them as the body of a kidney donor (...) And while I think deciding to give that gift of life to someone (be it via birth or gender neutral organ donation) if you see yourself fit to do so, is great thing, I don't think it is something that should be forced on by society.
    I think the problem with this theory is that by becoming pregnant, the woman is one half of creating a whole new life, who like you said, is totally dependent on her. This is not another person who's kidney gave out and that the woman had no part in. SHE took part in the sex that led to the creation of that life.

    There is such a blatant approval in here for not taking responsibility for one's actions in here, it appears to me. Don't forget, just because you didn't consciously "choose" for a result to take place, doesn't mean you aren't completely responsible for bringing it about.

    Let’s not downplay the physical changes or damages that occur as a result of pregnancy.
    See the above statement. Excluding the event where she was raped, the woman in question had sex and concieved. Long before 12 weeks has passed, this baby has a heartbeat, and IS LIVING. So please explain to me why it is OK to extinguish a human life to prevent physical changes or damage, EVEN THOUGH the baby was created through the mothers own actions and choices. Because she can? Still doesn't make it the right choice, and therefore I can't support it being legal.(except in particular circumstances)

    None of that should so easily be dismissed. I find it disconcerting that a young girl or a woman should be made to feel obligated to put her body through all of that trauma regardless of whether she wants to or not.
    Again, she has no responsibility in becoming pregnant? The baby just magically popped in there, and no wonder she doesn't want it?!


    But most of all I find it weird that a woman’s life is valued until she gets pregnant, but then her life must suddenly take a backseat to the potential life growing inside of her.
    First of all, no, it's alive. Just because someone is helpless doesn't mean they aren't alive and don't have value. What does that say for the severely handicapped? The difference here is, the fetus will become a baby which will become a man or woman.

    Secondly, of course her life is valued at every stage! Physical discomfort doesn't equal "OK to kill"...her value is not more than the life she created. When I said "who cares" I meant I'm not sure how her natural pregnancy troubles justify killing anyone, particularly when she was active in making that baby!

    And finally, I'll remind you that I am a woman, that I am trying to become pregnant, and that all of my close friends have had children. Some of them had bad pregnancies, with many of the "side-effects" you listed. Doesn't justify ending a developing human because you're sorry that your own actions helped create a new life-form.
    Last edited by BloodyHell; 11-02-12 at 01:28 PM.
    I have loved you. - Ser Jorah Mormont

  11. #47
    Team Sanity Nixennacht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,685
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 66 Times in 25 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BloodyHell View Post
    I think the problem with this theory is that by becoming pregnant, the woman is one half of creating a whole new life, who like you said, is totally dependent on her. This is not another person who's kidney gave out and that the woman had no part in. SHE took part in the sex that led to the creation of that life.

    There is such a blatant approval in here for not taking responsibility for one's actions in here, it appears to me. Don't forget, just because you didn't consciously "choose" for a result to take place, doesn't mean you aren't completely responsible for bringing it about.
    Ok, there are two parts in here which I want to answer separately. I think we can agree that not everybody who wants sex wants a child. Most of us are hardwired to want sex, yet only some of us and only under the right conditions do want children.

    It's certainly preferable to use contraceptives but if they have not been used or if they fail, I think every woman has to weigh her options. What is the responsible choice depends on how her situation is (both physical and psychological). If she does not see herself fit to raise a kid and does not deem society able to do it either, then abortion is the responsible choice.

    A child should in my opinion not be used to punish the mother for something some religions might view as immoral (sex, that is not for procreation).

    Again, she has no responsibility in becoming pregnant? The baby just magically popped in there, and no wonder she doesn't want it?!
    The consequence ends where she is pregnant. That's as far as it goes. Now she has to chose if she wants to sustain that embryo into a baby or not and act accordingly.
    I do not think that having a child is always the responsible decision, I know it definitely would have not been for me when I was a teenager or in my early twenties and I'm very grateful I never had to make that choice, but I would never dream of dictating it to those who do have to face it.

  12. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Nixennacht For This Useful Post:

    Jessica M.C. (23-07-12),Mara (11-02-12),Sky (12-02-12),sueworld (11-02-12),TimeTravellingBunny (12-02-12)

  13. #48
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,531
    Thanks
    221
    Thanked 3,606 Times in 1,697 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nixennacht View Post
    Ok, there are two parts in here which I want to answer separately. I think we can agree that not everybody who wants sex wants a child. Most of us are hardwired to want sex, yet only some of us and only under the right conditions do want children.
    I agree, that not everyone who wants sex wants a child. But it's not worth skipping past your comment that most of us are hardwired to want sex. In an evolutionary sense, there is only one reason that that's true.

    In the interests of parity, I wanted to rattle off a list of known side-effects to both medical and surgical abortion. I'm trying to be carefully cite only government sources since I actually am psychic and know in advance that almost any list I cite will be immediately decried as pro-life propaganda. All of the following information is available rom the US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (www.ncbi.nlm.gov)

    -- induced abortion leads to an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy.
    -- medical abortion (i.e. through the admininstration of drugs like misoprostol) has common side effects of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and warmth or chills. According to the institute's entry "complications of medical abortion represent an extreme or severe side effect", and medical abortion an require (about 2% to 10% of cases) "surgical intervention for control of bleeding, resolution of incomplete expulsion, or termination of a continuing pregnancy" (the latter meaning... it just didn't work).
    -- abortions can result in secondary infertility due to extended retention of fetal bone tissue. Infertility can also be caused by uterine damage sustained during a surgical abortion.

    Per Psychology Today, abortion can also be a cause of PTSD (although the APA has not adopted the differentiated term "PASS", or post-abortion stress syndrome) which has its own set of physical and psychological symptoms that are at least as significant and dangerous as post-partem depression, for instance.

    Not going to bog down with too much of it, the point is that it's not like "pregnancy is dangerous, abortion is safe" is a fair or valid risk assessment to the choices here.

    Banner by LRae12

  14. #49
    bewitching the mind Mara's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    490
    Thanks
    932
    Thanked 943 Times in 287 Posts

    Default

    Cheryl4ba

    Thanks Mara. What I meant regarding the truth as I know it was simply that my thoughts are based on what I consider to be "the truth" from a biblical viewpoint. So it is the truth, as *I* know it. What I believe it to be.

    Ok, I thought you meant that sorry, my miss I misread you.

    I find it interesting that you said it is within the rights of a Jewish person to have an abortion and was just wondering if you can share with me where you find that in the bible? I have read the bible, OT and New and never got that impression. It IS a huge book filled with a ton of information though, so I am certainly not implying that because I don't remember it, it can't be there.
    Well, your Bible knowledge is far greater then mine and I am not 100% sure if this is in the Bible, but in the Jewish tradition other sources are valued next to the Torah (frst 5 Bible books). One of these are commentaries by the Rabbiís on the Torah and another one is the Jewish law witch is if I am not mistaken, comprised of the commentary of these Rabbiís. the Halacha (Jewish law) permits abortion in certain cases. So it may well be that the source of this right is found in other sacred texts and not explicitly in the Torah. I think it also has to do with both the subject of ensoulment and with the fact that it is almost impossible to be in a situation as a religious Jewish woman where you would consider an abortion. For a Jewish woman, letís rephrase, for a Jewish woman from the community I used to be a part of, life revolves around producing as many healthy children within a marriage as possible. So abortion is far from a common thing. I was merely trying to say that different religions see abortion differently. I am curious on the subject of ensoulment though, how does Christianity see it?

    In my humble opinion abortion is murder which we know God commands us not to do. Having said that, it certainly isn't something that a person could never recover from. I don't believe a sin like that even exists. Looking at the OT as we learn about God and his people, some of the most loved and blessed by God were in fact guilty of committing murder. Moses killed a man and then fled to the wilderness for like 40 years and David, the man after God's own heart, ruthlessly killed a man for Bathsheba, the mans wife.
    It is so interesting that you would bring this up, as Davidís actions were one of the first things that had me turn from faith in my teens.

    So from my perspective this IS a choice that a female could be forced to make but it isn't any different than any other choice God puts before us. "I set before you life and death. Choose life." Obviously God gives us a choice in everything.
    I agree. But this to me means that we (women) are free to choose to abort the child as well. This is a choice that will have consequences, and I think that this is the part where faith comes in.

    BloodyHell

    My opinions on this are very much tangled up with my faith, and also the responsibility(and therefore acceptance of consequences) I place on the woman for choosing to have sex. (which opens up the can of worms of: what if she is raped and conceives? In this case, I still believe it is the right thing to do to keep the baby, because he/she is innocent of any wrong doing. However, I recognise the emotional damage caused by rape and that this may result in great damage to the mother and - worse - the child and his/her upbringing. In this post, I am referring to consentual sex resulting in an unwanted pregnancy) On the one hand, I do believe that we are given free will for a reason - we can and should choose our own way. But I struggle with making it legal for any and all reasons the woman chooses, because I believe it to be wrong except in very rare, medical circumstances. I don't support the notion of "if she wants to get rid of the fetus, she will find a way" as a justification for abortion being legal or right.
    My believes are also very much tangled up with my faith n this case, but the thing is, itís my faith. And I am very aware of the fact that the society I live n, heck even my group of friends do not all share my faith. So myself as I said above for my own reasons of faith, I would never choose abortion (or well I hope I would never but as said before I was never in a situation like that). I agree with you that there is a certain responsibility on both the woman and the man. If you are ready to have sex, hell be ready for the consequences of your actions. However I do not think that faced with an unwanted pregnancy, the responsible thing to do is not give birth. But the responsible thing to do is to make the right choice. For yourself, the potential life inside you, third parties involved. I think that terminating the pregnancy takes as much courage and responsibility as going trough with the pregnancy. And here I think that society, or the government should help women, help them not get rid of (or kill) their unwanted potential life to be, but to help them make the right decision by providing for a healthy and safe environment for those who choose to terminate the pregnancy. It is not only because I believe that people will find solutions to their problem, but also because I think that this issue is important, and that we as society should help a woman make the choice she feels is right, rather then taking the choice away from her. All this is just my opinion.

    Why are plants and animals even a part of this discussion? I'm not saying they don't have value, but most of us think it is acceptable to eat them, I don't think they have the same ball-park of value as a human life.
    Plants and animals are part of this discussion because all forms of life are sacred. And yes most of us (including me) eat them but that is because this is how God created the world, not because their existence has less value then a human life.

    I guess for me this determination is a big part of the problem; it feels like splitting hairs to me. Four months before the baby is born, he/she is still at a stage of development that most people would recognise as a baby...it just needs a litte more time to grow.
    But at four month if I am not mistaken abortion is not a question any more, it is too late and at that point it is no longer legal to perform one. The question for me is not, should it be allowed to perform an abortion at a stage of the potential lifeís development in which with a couple of more month this potential life will grow into a baby. But the question is, should it be allowed to terminate the pregnancy in the early stages where the question of whether these cells are alive, or will become life is debatable at best.

    I guess I should point out that it isn't that I think the choice can/should be taken away from the mother. You're right, it is her body and she'll do with it what she wants unless she was chained up. But I believe it is a wrong choice, and I don't want it legal because I don't want to support the freedom to make this choice over and over.
    There it is, you believe it is a wrong choice, I believe that it is a wrong choice, but those are my believes and yours. It is however an important choice, one where I would rather see a woman faced with a number of options, rather then being faced with just one option she is unhappy with. Legalising abortion to me, first and foremost means the opportunity for the woman to do what she feels is right without the possibility of getting scarred for life, in the medical sense of the word. Or enduring painfull, risky procedures without having the opportunity for a medic to be present. And I donít think any woman will, go trough an abortion more than once, because it is not only physically painfull but it is also hard emotionally and psychologically to go trough one. The fact that I believe that abortion is the wrong choice, in my opinion does not give me the right to prevent others from having the opportunity to choice to have one. And Iíd rather women who choose to do this, are safe.

    Before that point where a Baby becomes the responsibility of society at large it's just between mother and child. The mother can sustain the life inside her or she can chose not to. It is her body and society imho has no right to interfere whatsoever.
    But society is interfering, by making abortion illegal. Which make it sounds like the woman is bad, if she chooses to have one and makes the woman look for illegal ways. Bringing that emotional pain, untop of the one she is faced with by making her desccion and forcing the woman to endure societies negative view of her actions. Sociality should not intervene with the womanís decision I agree on that but it should provide for the woman to make the dessicion she wants without feeling like she is doing something wrong.

    There is such a blatant approval in here for not taking responsibility for one's actions in here, it appears to me. Don't forget, just because you didn't consciously "choose" for a result to take place, doesn't mean you aren't completely responsible for bringing it about.
    Yes the woman is partly responsible (I am talking consensual sex here), but another part of the discussion that is being overlooked here in my opinion and that is the baby. Letís assume that the baby, is alive from the moment of conception, or he/she is ensouled from the moment of conception and is alive within a mother from the moment his/her heart develops. Then I am assuming that this life can feel. Imagine if it is unwanted? By everyone. Imagine f it can feel that. Or a less religious/spiritual case. Imagine a woman giving birth to this child that is unwanted by her, the father and everyone around her. A child from a very young age, feels whether he is wanted or not. I cannot see how abortion is a wrong choice but giving life to something you donít want to give life too, or you donít want in your life is not wrong. There are so many unwanted children around the world in foster homes and shelters and whatnot, to me going trough with the pregnancy and dumping your newborn, in a trash can, or for that matter at your parents is many times more worse than terminating the potential life of a not fully developed cluster of cells. By accepting to go trough with the pregnancy you are in my opinion not only committing yourself to give life but also to provide and nurture this life until it can stand on itís own, and that can take a lot of years. I am getting emotional here, sorry, no means to hurt anyoneís feelings, but I can not understand how it is wrong to not give life, but how t is not wrong to give a life and then dump it, when it is no longer in connection with your body.

    When I said "who cares" I meant I'm not sure how her natural pregnancy troubles justify killing anyone, particularly when she was active in making that baby!
    As said above, you have to be willing to give life to this potential life to be, to endure everything that comes with a pregnancy. A pregnancy s not easy, it is life changing for a woman and yes it can be a wonderful experience but it is also a lot that is happening to your body and your psyche. One of my friends has been confided to the hospital bed for almost all of her pregnancy because of severe pregnancy issues. She wanted that child, she had the will to go trough with it. She found the will to get out of her post childbirth depression ( canít figure the word for it in English) because of the fact that she remembered how mush she wanted the child. You have to want the child, to be willing to put your body trough that.

    And finally, I'll remind you that I am a woman, that I am trying to become pregnant, and that all of my close friends have had children. Some of them had bad pregnancies, with many of the "side-effects" you listed. Doesn't justify ending a developing human because you're sorry that your own actions helped create a new life-form.
    And I am a woman too, a woman with 90% chance of never ever being able to give birth, or carry out a full pregnancy. And to be frank I went trough, and partly still am going trough a period of severe jealousy for other women who can have children. But thatís me. Those are my issues. That doesnít change my opinions at all. And it doesn't change the fact that I can not choose for other women, wether they will or will not have a baby. or have sex for that matter.

    Yugh, still managed to get emotional over thisÖ I am sorry if I have offended anyone.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Mara For This Useful Post:

    Jessica M.C. (23-07-12)

  16. #50
    Slayer stormwreath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,460
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 406 Times in 167 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mara View Post
    One of these are commentaries by the Rabbiís on the Torah and another one is the Jewish law witch is if I am not mistaken, comprised of the commentary of these Rabbiís. the Halacha (Jewish law) permits abortion in certain cases. So it may well be that the source of this right is found in other sacred texts and not explicitly in the Torah.
    That's what I understand from my reading. Maimonides, who was one of the foremost scholars who codified Jewish law around 800 years ago, wrote this:

    "It is a negative commandment (Deuteronomy 25:12) not to have pity for the life of an aggressor. That is why the Sages ruled that if a woman is in hard travail the embryo is removed, either by drugs or surgery: because it is regarded as one pursuing her and trying to kill her."

    In other words, Jewish law permits abortion to save the life of the mother. There is controversy over how far this should go: whether an abortion is permitted if her health is endangered rather than her life, for example.

  17. #51
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,531
    Thanks
    221
    Thanked 3,606 Times in 1,697 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stormwreath View Post
    In other words, Jewish law permits abortion to save the life of the mother. There is controversy over how far this should go: whether an abortion is permitted if her health is endangered rather than her life, for example.
    Interestingly enough, while Justice Blackmun (who wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade) later advocated that abortion-on-demand was a constitutional mandate, abortion-on-demand was not the idea contemplated and shared by the seven justices voting in the majority on Roe. They thought that all they were doing, was codifying as implicit in the US Constitution the right of a woman to obtain a legal abortion in the interest of her medical well-being. At the time it was written, and there are accounts of this by those who participated, the majority that Blackmun represented did not believe their opinion to be one that endorsed "abortion on demand" as a constitutional requirement. The opinion speaks to the decision made by women with their doctors. The now infamous and long-forgotten concurrence of Chief Justice Burger even said "(p)lainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand."

    Banner by LRae12

  18. #52
    Team Sanity Nixennacht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,685
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 66 Times in 25 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    I agree, that not everyone who wants sex wants a child. But it's not worth skipping past your comment that most of us are hardwired to want sex. In an evolutionary sense, there is only one reason that that's true.
    Yep, but that's not the only part of our (and many an animal's) nature. We asses the environment and if it does not seem fit to raise offspring in we might decide against doing so. As independently from the actual sex and conception as many animals do.
    Evolution is not fun and games and a population that cannot keep itself in check when the resources become scarce will lose. So please don't try and tell me that celibacy is "the natural" way of not raising unwanted children. We know the natural way and I definitely find abortion preferable to infanticide.

    As for the health risk. I think no one has claimed abortion has zero health risk, it does. Less though than a pregnancy.

  19. #53
    Slayer stormwreath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,460
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 406 Times in 167 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KingofCretins View Post
    Justice Blackmun (who wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade) later advocated that abortion-on-demand was a constitutional mandate, abortion-on-demand was not the idea contemplated and shared by the seven justices voting in the majority on Roe.
    In Britain, abortion is allowed if proceeding with the pregnancy would cause a greater "injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family" than termination would. Parliament was very insistent at the time that this was not the same thing as abortion on demand.

    Except in practice, who judges if having the baby would cause "injury" to someone's mental health? There are really two options: either you accept a woman's own word that having the baby would cause adverse effects to her and her family - or you set up a committee of experts and strangers who will presume to pass judgement on whether or not she's telling the truth.

    In the UK, the consensus quickly formed that the latter would be an appalling intrusion into a person's individual autonomy and liberty; and so in practice the woman's word is always accepted - which means de facto, if not in law, abortion on demand.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to stormwreath For This Useful Post:

    MikeB (13-12-14)

  21. #54
    Scooby Gang BloodyHell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Great North
    Posts
    513
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 43 Times in 41 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nixennacht View Post
    Ok, there are two parts in here which I want to answer separately. I think we can agree that not everybody who wants sex wants a child. Most of us are hardwired to want sex, yet only some of us and only under the right conditions do want children. It's certainly preferable to use contraceptives but if they have not been used or if they fail, I think every woman has to weigh her options.
    Of course when we want sex we don't always want a child to result from it! I just think it is really sad that when a woman "weighs her options" one of those options is to kill a developing human. Remember, at 12 wks the fetus has already had a heartbeat for over 2 months. This isn't some clump of cells, he/she is alive.

    A child should in my opinion not be used to punish the mother for something some religions might view as immoral (sex, that is not for procreation).
    I know we've had faith discussions in the past, Nix, but I hope no one on here thinks that my arguments have really been faith-based and that is it. Of course the baby isn't "punishment" for sex. (though it is a natural consequence)I stated a number of times that if the fetus has many indicators of being alive(medically speaking), even if we don't talk about souls, "sacredness of all life" blah blah...my argument has remained that the fetus can be proven to be alive and abortion gives her the option to make it QUIT being alive - in euphemism-free terms, it was alive, and then it is dead.

    This is slightly changing the topic, but I still want to know something: what is it about the baby actually being BORN versus still being in the womb that makes it not permissable to kill? Do you believe they recieve a soul at birth? What else do you think defines that moment, as opposed to a 20 wk old fetus? To me, a fetus is just a baby at an early stage of development, just like a child is an adult at an early stage of development. So I view killing a fetus as very nearly the same thing as killing a newborn. I genuinely want to know, what draws the line for you?

    Mara - actually, abortion is generally available up to the 20 wk point, which is 5 months!

    Also, I'm not trying to make anyone have or not have an abortion based on my faith and my belief's. You're right, my faith is just that: mine, and no one else's. But I"m arguing for abortion being "wrong" in the sense that it is killing human life, which is generally thought to be wrong no matter the religion or culture! I certainly don't think anyone on here is a monster or something - my guess is that people have different perspectives of what makes a human, a human, and when life begins to have value. Brings me back to my initial question, of when and why is it OK to kill a living, beating, developing and healthy fetus, but not a living, beating, developing and healthy baby?

    As for plants an animals - well, that is your opinion and belief that plants and animals have the same value as human life. They matter, but I don't think many would agree with you that they are equal to humans.
    Last edited by BloodyHell; 11-02-12 at 07:23 PM.
    I have loved you. - Ser Jorah Mormont

  22. #55
    Raindrop Obsessed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Haven
    Posts
    599
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 40 Times in 31 Posts

    Default

    I believe there's a heart beat at 6 to 8 weeks. Just throwing that out here- not sharing my views or anything.
    Banner by Digital Leonardo

  23. #56
    Slayer cheryl4ba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,232
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked 21 Times in 19 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Obsessed View Post
    I believe there's a heart beat at 6 to 8 weeks. Just throwing that out here- not sharing my views or anything.
    There is a heartbeat a lot earlier than that, it's one of the first things you can see on ultrasound. After a round of fertility treatment, after two miscarriages and before I had In Vitro and ended up with triplets, I went from the Dr. Office, where I saw my babies heartbeat, straight to the hospital to have it removed, because it was located in my fallopian tube rather than uterus, which would have killed me. That was just after my initial blood test for pregnancy, which happened 5 days after my missed period.

    Whosoever Shall Call Upon the Name of the Lord Shall Be Saved!

  24. #57
    Team Sanity Nixennacht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,685
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 66 Times in 25 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BloodyHell View Post
    Of course when we want sex we don't always want a child to result from it! I just think it is really sad that when a woman "weighs her options" one of those options is to kill a developing human. Remember, at 12 wks the fetus has already had a heartbeat for over 2 months. This isn't some clump of cells, he/she is alive.
    Cells generally are. Look I am not claiming a zygote or early stage fetus is not alive. This is not my angle. My angle is that it cannot survive on it's own. It is sustained by the mother's body. In a way it is not a separate life yet, but part of the mother's body. And until this is no longer the case, no one but her has a right to decide what is to happen to that part of her body.


    I know we've had faith discussions in the past, Nix, but I hope no one on here thinks that my arguments have really been faith-based and that is it.
    I'm not sure I want to open that can of worms but I think this argument is an somewhat inherently faith based one. Because if you believe life is given by a deity, you would likely have a completely different stance than someone who thinks life is given by the parents/mother.

    Also the notion that sex needs to be for procreation only is a religious one.

    in euphemism-free terms, it was alive, and then it is dead.
    This is nothing you will see me refute. I simply think that as long as independent survival is not possible, this decision to sustain that life rests solely with the mother and society has no right to intercede.
    Society can create an environment in which women, even single mums on the verge of poverty feel save to have children. But the final choice is the mother's call.

    This is slightly changing the topic, but I still want to know something: what is it about the baby actually being BORN versus still being in the womb that makes it not permissable to kill?
    The fact that when the Baby can be born (or survive independently with technical help) it becomes part of society. A society that then takes the responsibility of bringing that child up has also the right to forbid it being killed, even by the ones who created it in the first place.

    Do you believe they recieve a soul at birth?
    No.

    What else do you think defines that moment, as opposed to a 20 wk old fetus? To me, a fetus is just a baby at an early stage of development, just like a child is an adult at an early stage of development. So I view killing a fetus as very nearly the same thing as killing a newborn. I genuinely want to know, what draws the line for you?
    I hope, I managed to explain. Independent survival. That does not mean a baby doesn't need care. But it is no longer the mother alone who can give it.

    To be honest I don't think a society that does not take care of babies that can't be taken care of their parents does even have the right to judge infanticide, in my eyes. It's a terrible, horrible thing, but if a mother is faced with the choice of seeing her kid starve or killing it painless herself, I understand why she would do the later.

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to Nixennacht For This Useful Post:

    sueworld (11-02-12)

  26. #58
    Scooby Gang BloodyHell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Great North
    Posts
    513
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 43 Times in 41 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nixennacht View Post
    And until this is no longer the case, no one but her has a right to decide what is to happen to that part of her body.
    OK, I can understand your angle now. I don't disagree that the woman has the greatest right (I think the father has a say as well) and certainly final say with what is done with her almost-baby. But I'm still struggling with legalizing it, because I still see it as killing an innocent.

    Also the notion that sex needs to be for procreation only is a religious one.
    True, but what I was saying is that that is not my religious stance on sex, nor is it everyone who has faith's stance on anti-abortion.

    This is nothing you will see me refute. I simply think that as long as independent survival is not possible, this decision to sustain that life rests solely with the mother and society has no right to intercede.
    It is one of those situations for me where I don't disagree that the decision lies with the mother, but that I don't want to encourage women to not take responsibility for their actions by giving them an easier(not easy), legal "out". I feel if something is legal, it looks like it is as viable and right of a choice as anything else. Which - as everyone here knows - I strongly disagree with. Thus, I want it to be illegal, except in particular circumstances.

    I hope, I managed to explain. Independent survival. That does not mean a baby doesn't need care. But it is no longer the mother alone who can give it.
    So we can agree that the decision lies with the mother. That she and she alone is physically able to sustain that unborn baby. But many of the reasons for abortion do not include starvation, threat to the mother's life, etc. Plenty of times it is simply "unwanted", or "it isn't the right time"(inconvienent) or "I'm not ready yet," "I'm still in school". I'm not saying these aren't difficult situations for the maybe-mother. But is it right for her to have the easier-out option that takes care of her "problem" in a very short,(sometimes) surgery-free way? It seems like a license to kill, perhaps multiple times, because she "can't" take responsibility for what her actions have resulted in. How do I support a choice that invariably leads to a living, though unborn, baby being killed...a baby who is completely at the mercy of the mother he/she is within?

    It is a tough subject with no easy answers.

    (on the subject of reasonable reasons for infantcide...bleh...let's just agree that that is a terrible, horrible situation. I won't agree with it, but I don't have a good answer for it. Yet, that would be legally considered murder - I agree that it is - and yet it is not murder, legally, to kill an unborn baby. Maybe for the same reasons you listed)

    Obsessed - first heartbeat, from what I've read anyway, is supposed to be around 20-22 days, I think. Pretty crazy, isn't it?!
    Last edited by BloodyHell; 12-02-12 at 02:16 AM.
    I have loved you. - Ser Jorah Mormont

  27. #59
    What? KingofCretins's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Big Honkin' Castle
    Posts
    13,531
    Thanks
    221
    Thanked 3,606 Times in 1,697 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nixennacht View Post
    My angle is that it cannot survive on it's own. It is sustained by the mother's body.
    Does either half of a pair of conjoined twins lose it's right to life by virtue of depending on the other to live? For that matter, a newborn infant set down in a room depends on others to survive -- and while she no longer depends specifically on her mother to survive, it is only at this point that we can legally compel her mother to keep her alive.

    Also the notion that sex needs to be for procreation only is a religious one.
    Sex is for procreation if you ask a biologist just as surely as if you ask a minister. But more in the sense that the dryer is for drying clothes but there are people who find they like to run it for other reasons as well.

    The fact that when the Baby can be born (or survive independently with technical help) it becomes part of society. A society that then takes the responsibility of bringing that child up has also the right to forbid it being killed, even by the ones who created it in the first place.
    "Society" doesn't have a legal responsibility to protect that child after she's born; her mother and her father do.

    To be honest I don't think a society that does not take care of babies that can't be taken care of their parents does even have the right to judge infanticide, in my eyes. It's a terrible, horrible thing, but if a mother is faced with the choice of seeing her kid starve or killing it painless herself, I understand why she would do the later.
    Would you have prosecuted Casey Anthony? Let's assume for the moment she is factually guilty of killing her daughter, she did it for exactly the reasons many women get an abortion -- so they can continue their previous lifestyle without interruption. She (for argument's sake, I don't want to argue about this woman's guilt or innocence) treated her responsibility to that child as nothing more or less than a 14th trimester abortion.

    I ask only because you seem open to infanticide in the, to use the abortion terminology, "life of the mother, health of the child" context, so why could we not then generalize the abortion on demand reasoning as well?

    Banner by LRae12

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to KingofCretins For This Useful Post:

    BloodyHell (12-02-12)

  29. #60
    Team Sanity Nixennacht's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,685
    Thanks
    26
    Thanked 66 Times in 25 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BloodyHell View Post
    It is one of those situations for me where I don't disagree that the decision lies with the mother, but that I don't want to encourage women to not take responsibility for their actions by giving them an easier(not easy), legal "out". I feel if something is legal, it looks like it is as viable and right of a choice as anything else.
    I don't think so. Many things that I would judge morally wrong are legal. Cheating on your spouse, telling kids there is a hell, locust capitalism...there are tons of things that I would not do but that are legal.

    I think the point of law is not defining right and wrong, everybody has to do that for themselves. It's a matter of society to regulate itself. And I don't think it does not have the right to decide what a woman does with her body.

    In the end my answer mostly is, if you are against abortions don't have one, but do not try to make a decision for other women that is their call.

    Does it really make anything better, if women poison themselves with illegal medicine again and bleed out in back rooms?

    Plenty of times it is simply "unwanted"
    But I think a child should be wanted when you give it life. For me it would be irresponsible and wrong to give life to something I do not want.

    , or "it isn't the right time"(inconvienent) or "I'm not ready yet,"
    And I think those are viable reasons not to want a child.

    How do I support a choice that invariably leads to a living, though unborn, baby being killed...a baby who is completely at the mercy of the mother he/she is within?
    With accepting that she alone decides who she gives life to.

    It is a tough subject with no easy answers.
    Sure, we are talking desperate situations here that are usually a personal tragedy.

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to Nixennacht For This Useful Post:

    sueworld (12-02-12)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •